View Full Version : Vista gaming will be 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP
sladesurfer
10-08-2006, 08:08 PM
:nono: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34915
MICROSOFT is telling its selected gaming industry chaps that gaming under Vista will be ten to fifteen per cent slower than XP. It is because you have to load the 3D desktop all the time. It is ironic, as the same company tells the developers that the same API can do certain things up to four times faster.
We are preparing to check this claim but the really pesky thing is that you won’t be able to run DirectX 10 games on Windows XP at all. So even a game like Crysis - the first DirectX 10 title - won’t be that much of a DX 10. We are still far away from DirectX 10 only games but don’t be surprised as there is no single DirectX 10 card the market. This should change in the next few weeks, but we are still far away from mainstream and low end DirectX 10 cards.
So if you play Battlefield 2 or FEAR or any other popular game you are likely to get lower frame rates with Vista. That is certainly not a good buying argument but don’t think you and I have much choice as it looks like a take it or leave it deal. I like Vista as the 3D desktop looks sexy but that is probably its key feature. µ
[XC] leviathan18
10-08-2006, 09:06 PM
weird people is telling gaming in RC1 is as fast or faster in certain cases that xp
Death^Dread
10-08-2006, 09:11 PM
Yes, but by the time games are released with DirectX 10 as a REQUIREMENT, I'm sure something will have been worked out. In the meantime, those who remain on XP can still run the games, just not DirectX 10.
Kanavit
10-08-2006, 09:12 PM
wow, looks like Vista is going to be a big system hog operating system! :(
STEvil
10-08-2006, 09:47 PM
has to the possibility to be.
Heck, dont even have to have vista. I've got APC PowerChute Personal Edition (APC UPS monitoring software) installed and I have seen it eat up to 100mb of ram.. :(
revenant
10-08-2006, 09:53 PM
shocker on this.. NOT! Vista is going to be really comfy and cushy but a total pig resource-wise... sorta like a 6000SUX! lol. (hello Robocop)... Anyways, I am so -not- going to use vista for my gaming rig that is for s**t sure.. unless XP doesn't get DX10 support.
EDIT: man, it's been a while since I had an OS for games and an OS for "other".
Death^Dread
10-08-2006, 10:06 PM
OS tweakers, get ready for Vista!
Have fun removing :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty background programs and stopping pesky "required" background processes!
syne_24
10-08-2006, 10:23 PM
lol why am I not surprise; obviously the resource hogging in the previous beta had to give some kinda clue. This will just further confirm that making the transition early is not a good idea. I will definitely wait it out until they get things sorted out.
I wonder if disabling the 3D desktop visuals will give higher gaming performance than XP?
Nephilim
10-08-2006, 10:59 PM
It amuses me how people get concerned about all their memory being used up :rolleyes:
An efficient operating system uses ALL memory for currently running processes and allocates as required. If less apps are used, it should (theoretically) provide the few applications with a necessary share of the total available.
The problem occurs when the memory is not allocated as needed and the system starts paging to fixed disks.
maxxxxel
10-08-2006, 11:06 PM
Do you think it could be possible that someone copies/modifys DX10 to work with WinXP? Ive heard that D10 is very intergrated into the system. Crazy idea but could it be possibe?
marauder16
10-08-2006, 11:30 PM
I think we'll have to wait to SP1 to have a decent OS :slapass:
erwinz
10-08-2006, 11:56 PM
OS tweakers, get ready for Vista!
Have fun removing :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty background programs and stopping pesky "required" background processes!
:hehe: i think it will be bare when they finish with vista.. :D
alucasa
10-08-2006, 11:58 PM
It amuses me how people get concerned about all their memory being used up :rolleyes:
An efficient operating system uses ALL memory for currently running processes and allocates as required. If less apps are used, it should (theoretically) provide the few applications with a necessary share of the total available.
Hah, yep. Linux eats up all available memory and leaves you with zero ram left.
it realocates rams as needed.
Maybe, windows should follow that path and then users won't complain how much ram it eats up since it will always eat up all available ram:p
Kabouter
10-09-2006, 12:13 AM
Performancewise I didn't really have any problems during RC1.
I even noticed FPS gains in games like Joint Task Force and The Settlers II: 10th Anniversary.
Shame that in RC2 I can't play most games because the nVidia driver support isn't there yet. But that's fully understandable ofcourse.
Marvin_The_Martian
10-09-2006, 01:09 AM
It amuses me how people get concerned about all their memory being used up :rolleyes:
An efficient operating system uses ALL memory for currently running processes and allocates as required. If less apps are used, it should (theoretically) provide the few applications with a necessary share of the total available.
The problem occurs when the memory is not allocated as needed and the system starts paging to fixed disks.
QFT :toast:
maxxxxel
10-09-2006, 01:33 AM
So why can MS provide a 'Gaming Switch' instead of using hardware profiles?
stop unessesary services, 3D backgroud ect ??
Early reports about vista mentioned something about allowing a direct path to the hardware (same used in xbox) and that should give 30-40% improvement for games written for vista
________
extreme vaporizer review (http://extremevaporizer.net/)
DTU_XaVier
10-09-2006, 01:46 AM
Am I the only one getting a deja vu feeling right now?? The exact same things were said about XP when it came out, where people kept going back to win2000... Now it's Vista, and it's all over again...
The DX10 thing is :banana::banana::banana::banana:ty though, just a cheap sales trick from M$... :rolleyes:
Best Regards :toast:
STEvil
10-09-2006, 01:51 AM
Do you think it could be possible that someone copies/modifys DX10 to work with WinXP? Ive heard that D10 is very intergrated into the system. Crazy idea but could it be possibe?
It was a planned feature of XS OS. I have not heard info on this specific feature for a while but I assume it is still being worked on.
It is because you have to load the 3D desktop
Don't tell me it will run in safe mode too
If it does not then I will be able to disable it
maxxxxel
10-09-2006, 02:46 AM
DirectX 10 to make things up to four times faster
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34946
so they say....
alayashu
10-09-2006, 03:41 AM
Vista gaming will be 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP
correction, Vista Beta gaming is 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP.
the final version will be faster for sure.
correction, Vista Beta gaming is 10 to 15 per cent slower than XP.
the final version will be faster for sure.
Will be faster for games written for vista not for older title
________
vaporizer reviews (http://vaporizer.org/reviews)
Theli
10-09-2006, 06:13 AM
It amuses me how people get concerned about all their memory being used up :rolleyes:
Exactly, the RAM is there to be used. 1.5GB of free memory will do you no good if you never use it.
Obviously you could write an operating system that only used enough RAM to keep itself going, and then load from the harddrives as soon as you did anything whatsoever, but it wouldn't be very fast.
brentpresley, Nephilim both serve up very good points.
Soo many people moan about memory usage and are compairing a very mature os to a not even released one and are expecting it to walk over the previous os in beta stages.
One reason why i like mac osx is that it uses all the memory avaliable properly, 0.5gb-1gb-2gb steps result in huge increases in speed.
I havnt had the chance to run vista rc2 on a system with over a gig of ram (my os testing rig is a pd 930 with a gig of ram) but i hope it uses every last bit.
Tbh im not bothered if it slower, g80 and r600 will just blow away current gen cards and make up for the loss in its early stages.
nn_step
10-09-2006, 08:53 AM
It amuses me how people get concerned about all their memory being used up :rolleyes:
An efficient operating system uses ALL memory for currently running processes and allocates as required. If less apps are used, it should (theoretically) provide the few applications with a necessary share of the total available.
The problem occurs when the memory is not allocated as needed and the system starts paging to fixed disks.
:toast: Very true, but at the same time I understand when people want alot of ram free so that a few certain apps (say SPI) have as much Memory play room as possible :D
XSAlliN
10-09-2006, 09:24 AM
WHAT FUD!
You guys need to CALM DOWN a bit and realize you are essentially comparing the drivers for a 5 year old OS (XP) that have been tweaked about as much as possible to BETA software (even if it is just about to be released).
Don't blame MS for this. Blame ATI and NVIDIA. They are the ones responsible for recoding their drivers to work properly with the OS.
MS has done its job. Not even taking into account DX10, the design of the graphics sub-system is much more efficient than that in XP.
6 months from now we will have a stable video driver set and no one will even care about gaming on XP anymore.
EDIT: and many of you probably weren't around for it, but when XP was released we went through the EXACT same thing. Win2K was 10-15% faster in everything. Then, magically, there were some really nice driver "advancements" released. Problem solved and then no one cared about Win2K.
Isn't that cute? BUT IT'S WRONG!!! - and here is why: Remeber Longhorn? - we're talking about 3 years (or more) old project, they changed the name, added something new (Aero) and in all that time they keep on testing and delaying.
Win2k was faster because he didn't need many resources (whit a 128 Ram you could play games on Win2k, impossible to play on WhinXP), by the way Win98 was faster the Win2k but lost the game suport. (that was the end of Win98 for gamers), in Conclusion the only thing that's new and interasting in XP is DirectX10, the rest is crap in my opinion.
PS.And "YES" we can BLAME MICROSOFT because it's their fault, dirty marketing it's how I like to call it, MS could make DirectX10 support for Win XP but they won't, like I sayd above, DX10 is the only thing that could make people buy Vista, and the most dirty thing about this is that: Windows XP is MS based OS, so they'v stoped the support for their own OS, so they could sell another crap, as if Windows XP was for free :slapass:
im sure vista will be a lot of fun heh .. *look 2 nn_step n arms himself w/ brainz*
That original report is BS.
If the desktop doesn't have stupid programs running that actively continue computing in the background it won't take up resources.
Maybe MS meant that loading the game and/or switching from desktop to game will take longer. That would be possible as both now use the 3D engine and need to shuffle textures.
Theli
10-09-2006, 10:17 AM
Isn't that cute? BUT IT'S WRONG!!! - and here is why: Remeber Longhorn? - we're talking about 3 years (or more) old project, they changed the name, added something new (Aero) and in all that time they keep on testing and delaying.
Nvidia had drivers for Longhorn? Or are you saying that Nvidia could have started developing drivers for Vista at the same time Vista:s development started? That would have been quite a feat.
PS.And "YES" we can BLAME MICROSOFT because it's their fault, dirty marketing it's how I like to call it, MS could make DirectX10 support for Win XP but they won't, like I sayd above, DX10 is the only thing that could make people buy Vista, and the most dirty thing about this is that: Windows XP is MS based OS, so they'v stoped the support for their own OS, so they could sell another crap, as if Windows XP was for free
It's not exactly new either, is it?
Of course, Microsoft has a way of abandoning their operating systems, but I'm not sure how long we can expect them to keep updating them. Windows XP is a functioning operating system as it is. You could think of DirectX-10 as simply a part of their new OS.
cky2k6
10-09-2006, 10:47 AM
dx10 is not compatible with xp because vista uses a new driver model. sure, microsoft can hack away and make dx10 work with old drivers ar well, but why should they? you dont see companies add features from the brand new version of their software to the older versions, do you? why should microsoft do that? theyre not taking away from the functionality of xp, theyre adding to their new product. you want better games that run faster? then go out and buy their new os, after the fist service pack, lol...
XSAlliN
10-09-2006, 12:02 PM
Maybe MS meant that loading the game and/or switching from desktop to game will take longer. That would be possible as both now use the 3D engine and need to shuffle textures.
Not just longer on loading, also lower performance meajured in FPS, you made a good point in that direction.
Nvidia had drivers for Longhorn? Or are you saying that Nvidia could have started developing drivers for Vista at the same time Vista:s development started? That would have been quite a feat.
Man, Longhorn was Vista’s initial code name, you just see the Butterfly forgeting that it used to be a caterpillar, it just changed the look because it's based on Longhorn project, they didn't start from the begining whit Vista, and that's not somenthing new, same as Win2k used to be caled Odyssey.
It's not exactly new either, is it?
Of course, Microsoft has a way of abandoning their operating systems, but I'm not sure how long we can expect them to keep updating them. Windows XP is a functioning operating system as it is. You could think of DirectX-10 as simply a part of their new OS.
I didn't say it was, I know what Windows stands for... so :)
n00b 0f l337
10-09-2006, 12:05 PM
Now why would benchers switch to vista then?
Theli
10-09-2006, 01:01 PM
Now why would benchers switch to vista then?
0.5 seconds improvement on SuperPi 1m. :D
XSAlliN
10-09-2006, 01:13 PM
Your argument doesn't stand up because Longhorn was VERY different in its early incarnations compared to what Vista is NOW.
I didn't say it is the same:
..you just see the Butterfly forgeting that it used to be a caterpillar..
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/8538/baltimorejk8.jpg
Today.
vs.
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/8056/blackswallowtailcaterpillarel3.jpg
In the begining.
;) (now do you understand?)
Revv23
10-09-2006, 08:17 PM
Check this out, looks like vista is still pretty slow, but to me it looks like stuff that might be driver related.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2850&p=3
DilTech
10-09-2006, 08:33 PM
Now why would benchers switch to vista then?
3dmark 07.
XSAlliN
10-10-2006, 08:05 AM
New 3DMark coming out next year. Here there are some details:
- HDR rendering.
- Complex HDR post processing.
- Dynamic soft shadows for all objects.
- Water shader with HDR refraction, HDR reflection, depth fog and Gerstner wave functions.
- Heterogeneous fog.
- Atmospheric light scattering.
- Realistic sky model with cloud blending.
- Strauss lighting model for most materials.
- Subsurface scattering shader for some objects (not visible in the shot).
- Texture & normal map sizes: 1024 x 1024 to 2048 x 2048.
- Approximately 5.4 million triangles and 8.8 million vertices.
I don't play Benchmarks :)
eXceeded
10-10-2006, 08:16 AM
hmm I have found Vista RC2 to perform remarkably well in games, CSS is constant 160fps+ (XP is marginally faster at 180fps+) at 1680x1050 with max settings AA and AF. It is very quick, in fact I would go so far as to say that its faster at doing menial stuff than XP is (e.g. opening windows, shutting down, starting up and all that)